Obama's Collectivist "Togetherness" vs. Genuine Individualist Togetherness

During the 2012 election campaign, President Obama raised hackles with these now infamous comments:

“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

"So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for president — because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.”

There is much to say on these comments. But at root is a fundamental question: What is the proper means of human association? 

Human beings must live among other human beings. In a world of six billion people, none of us have a realistic choice about that. The choice we do have is in determining how to accomplish the task of living among one another. It is a political choice; choosing the proper social system. More importantly, it is a moral choice. Regarding the above statement, then, the question is: What does Obama mean by the term "together?" 

There are essentially two visions of that term. There is the collectivist sense of group supremacy vs. the individualist sense of peaceful coexistence. To understand the difference, let's start at the beginning.

There is no "we." Metaphysically, the only human entity that exists is the autonomous individual. This is an indisputable fact of nature. In the most fundamental sense, we're not "in this together." Each person is "on your own." No one can think for another. No one can operate the cognitive processes inside of another person's skull. No one can focus another person's mind. No one can make the mental connections that lead to understanding, except you, the individual owner of your brain. Only you can do these things for yourself. It is only a matter of choice and personal responsibility--yours.

That being the case, the group supremacy premise actually means state supremacy over the individual. Since government is solely an instrument of force, collectivistic "togetherness" means forcible subjugation of the individual and his property to the state--the togetherness of a rightless chain gang. The social systems that embody this principle are many--communism, fascism, Nazism, welfare statism. But all are manifestations of statism. All have one thing in common; no individual freedom to act on one's thinking.

In the individualist premise, togetherness means sovereignty for each individual. Does this mean everyone is an uncooperative loner, as Obama suggests? Hardly. Individualism means independent thinking and acting on one's own judgment. It means each individual is neither subordinate nor supreme over another. This type of togetherness leaves only one type of association among people--a type that is alien to Obama--voluntary association  There is only one social system that embodies this principle--capitalism. Capitalism is based upon inalienable individual rights and a limited, rights-protecting government.

Obama obliterates the individualist means of living together, mainly by distorting the nature of individualism. Notice the false choice he offers in regard to fire fighting services. Either we have a government-funded fire department, or "everybody had there own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires," he said. Yes, it would, which is why, without government involvement, people would voluntarily organize and pay for fire companies. The same goes for building the Golden Gate Bridge, roads, or the Hoover Dam. There are things, as Obama says, that we don't literally do on our own. 

But according to Obama, only government force gets things done together. Therefor, we must be forced into compliance with government dictates whenever there is a task that requires a cooperative effort among many people. 

Under statism, the state, as representative of the collective "we," owns the lives and wealth of its citizens. It can forcibly dispose of any individual(s) or his wealth in any manner it deems beneficial to "society" or the "public good." Under the division-of-labor exchange economy of capitalism, people deal with each other by means of voluntary trade to mutual benefit. People work together on a rights-respecting basis by voluntary contractual agreement. Under statism, people have their wealth seized by force to fund the public dreams of state officials. Under capitalism, people pursue their own dreams with their own wealth.

Obama's vision of togetherness is built on force. The opposite vision banishes force from human relationships. Obama's vision enslaves the productive to the needs of the less productive or the unproductive. The opposite vision protects the fruits of every productive person from human predators. Obama's vision is of a man getting what he needs from others by force of government theft (wealth redistribution). The opposite vision is of a man getting what he needs from others by trading his work product in return; i.e., by paying for it.

Obama's togetherness means collectivistic predatory socialism--the subordination of the makers to the takers. He is pandering to his greedy, grovelling, envious, parasitical base, the only beneficiaries of the "we're in this together" society. We need the peaceful coexistence provided by capitalism, and we need a strong enough Republican to articulate that moral vision.

Related Reading:

Collectivism vs. Individualism in Letters

Individualism vs. Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice—Craig Biddle

"Shared Prosperity" Another Name for Failed Policies

Michael P. Riccards, executive director of the Hall Institute of Public Policy-New Jersey, last August opened an op-ed with:

   Herbert Hoover promised to end poverty in 1928 with a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage. In the 1960s, Lyndon Johnson promised to wage a successful war on poverty, but today, an estimated 15 million people remain desperately poor in America.
   That’s just the “desperately poor.” A 2011 Census study reported a total of 146.4 million Americans (nearly 1 in 2) are scraping by on earnings that classify them as low income, perched perilously on the slippery rung just above desperately poor.

If you think that Riccards' intent is to question the government's policies over the past 80 years, and propose a new direction, you would be mistaken. His op-ed is titled "Sharing Prosperity can fend off poverty."

Riccards offers no specific policy proposals, only "an urgent need to elect politicians who see the poor not as a problem, but as an opportunity to build a stable 21st-century economy." Instead, he takes a cheap shot at "the aggressive New Right,"  and in particular Paul Ryan and his budget and his "unswerving fixation on breaking apart the federal government" (an overstatement if there ever was one). Ryan's budget, of course, would do no such thing: It wouldn't even cut spending, but merely slow its growth. 

I left these brief comments:

zemack

"The history lesson presented here is a clear indictment of the American welfare state. For nearly 100 years, we have had an unrelenting growth of government programs, culminating in the rampant Bush-Obama statism of the past decade. Today, the government is bigger than ever. Spending, regulating, and crony 'capitalism' are at unprecedented levels. It is no coincidence that this nation’s economic problems are multiplying just as the welfare state is at its historic peak. The regulatory welfare state, which is based on a watered down version of the principle that ability and productiveness must be sacrificed to need, is reaching its logical conclusion as the economy grinds down and threatens to roll over towards catastrophe. 
 
"Are we now to double down on failure? The intellectual bankruptcy of the Left is on display in this article. The future belongs to the champions of free market capitalism, the real progressives. Shared prosperity? It’s called voluntary trade, not legalized criminality called redistribution of wealth or government 'investment.'" 

Riccards is not content to merely blast Ryan's policies. Sinking even lower, Riccards basically accuses Ryan of being a hypocrite, stating "Ironically, the government services and protections Ryan works so strenuously to weaken for others have been his springboard." He notes:

   Ryan attended a publicly funded university for his schooling and has drawn nearly every cent of his adult wages from government coffers.
   His father died when Ryan was a teen; the Ryan family received Social Security survivors benefit payments and a federal Pell grant, allowing his mother to attend college and learn new job skills to keep the family out of poverty.

In other words, if you receive government "benefits" of any kind, you have no moral right to speak out against welfare state policies--never mind that you funded those benefits through coercive taxes to support programs you were forced into with the promise of some benefit. 

Today, given the size and intrusive scope of government, it is virtually impossible to not be a beneficiary of some government program, be it Social Security, Roads, public parks, schools, or libraries--the list goes on and on. So by Riccards' logic, we may as well repeal the First Amendment, except that it's not necessary, because statists can use the taxpayers' own money as a weapon of moral censorship by means of the "benefits" those tax dollars pay for. The nature of the insidious game going on, and the evil genius of the welfare state, is obvious, as Riccards demonstrates here. One might call it, "The Welfare State Trap." 

If you want to know the true motives of anyone who advocates government "assistance," it's on display here. Get a man hooked on some form of government handout, and he is yours to control--and silence--for life. Get more than half the population hooked, and you've got a built-in support structure for welfare statism. Add in the means of guilt-tripping resistors into silence--altruism-- and you have a clear path to ever-bigger government.

Ending poverty is not the goal of welfare statists. Poverty itself is the goal. If ending poverty were the goal, it's obvious that welfare statism has failed miserably, as any socialist scheme must, by its nature. In fact, real poverty was virtually wiped out during capitalism's heyday from the late 18th Century to the dawn of the Welfare State in the early 20th, a time which saw the emergence of the American middle class. 

Of course, what we call "poverty" today is a relative term, but that's part of the game. As I wrote a few years ago, "according to the egalitarian doctrine of 'relative poverty', the 'poor' will always be with us because, no matter how wealthy [a society], there will always be a class of people who have less material wealth than others and will thus fall below some arbitrarily devised 'poverty level' of income."

The nation has an urgent need, writes Riccards, for "an economy anchored to a steadily rising growth curve that benefits the 1 percent by integrating the 99 percent as true partners in shared prosperity." On this I agree with Riccards, but not in the way he means it. We once had such an economy in almost pure form. We still have remnants of it managing to keep our economy afloat. It's the system of individual rights and limited, rights-protecting government. It is the system of personal productiveness and the greatest and only moral prosperity-sharing human interaction--voluntary, mutually beneficial, mutually self-interested trade.

It is the system of earned prosperity. It is called free market capitalism.

Related Reading:

The "Relative" Poverty Gimmick

The Shadow of Marx Blankets the "Fiscal Cliff" Fight

Polls show strong support for President Obama's adamant insistence on raising taxes on the "the rich"-- which, in its current manifestation, means the "top 2%" of earners.

It would be easy to tag most of those poll respondents as hypocrites who favor tax hikes, but only on the other guy. While there is undoubtedly an element of truth in that, it would be simplistic to primarily blame hypocrisy for that majority sentiment. The reason so many people support Obama on this, in contradiction to Americans' traditional unenvious respect for personal achievement, is expressed in this statement by a poll respondent:

"If you are fortunate and have some extra, you need to help those who don't," said Robin Keck, 49, of Golden Valley, Minn., who owns a framing business and supports ending tax cuts for the rich. "I believe people who have more money generally find more uses for it than putting other people to work."

If you thought I was exaggerating in my TOS Blog post The Left's Egalitarian Trap when I said that if you accept discriminatory tax hikes on the top 2%, you have "no defense against tax hikes on anyone and everyone who earns more than anyone else," you have proof from the other side that I was not.

Keck's moral view, altruism, is held--though not consistently adhered to--by most people. It saturates the culture. If you have "more money," you need to help those who have less. Need to, as in moral duty. What constitutes "extra?" Anything that you can afford but the next guy can't.

I also said that the logical consequence of this line of thinking is "a society in which everyone is equally poor."  An exaggeration? On the Left's--and Keck's--premises, if it is right to tax people making over $250,000 for the sake of those making under $250,000, then it is right to tax people making $249,000 for the sake of people making $100,000; and to tax people making $50,000 for the sake of people making $25,000; and to tax people making $25,000 for the sake of people making $10,000. "There are people who aren't broke," said  Atlas Shrugged’s Orin Boyle, "You boys have no excuse for permitting all that need and misery to spread through the country—so long as there are people who aren't broke."

This is the moral view that underpins Karl Marx's "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." We know the horrors that the implementation of that slogan brought mankind, and most people are explicitly opposed to Marxism. But, implicitly, most people adhere to Marx's political philosophy through their acceptance of altruism--the moral underpinning of Marx's infamous slogan.

As long as the ethics of altruism dominates the culture, and more of us on the Right don't challenge it with the alternative moral code of rational self-interest, America will continue to buckle under the weight of a growing omnipotent government. The endgame of this trend, if not reversed, will be ugly.

Related Reading:

The Left's Egalitarian Trap

Understanding Obama: It's Not the Economy, Stupid!

The Creed of Sacrifice vs. the Land of Liberty, by Craig Biddle

FREE MARKET REVOLUTION: How Ayn Rand's Ideas Can End Big Government, by Yaron Brook and Don Watkins

"Fiscal Cliff"--GOP Losing for Lack of Moral Backbone

My latest post at The Objective Standard Blog explains why Republicans must not fall into The Left's Egalitarian Trap on tax hikes on "the rich." Here is the meat of the post:

The left’s immediate goal is to forcibly redistribute the wealth of the top one percent. But if—as the left asserts—this is the “moral” thing to do, why stop there? The top 2 percent have more wealth than everyone else, too. So do the top 3 and the top 5 and the top 11 percent. If Republicans accept that it is “moral” to confiscate and redistribute someone’s wealth because he is wealthier than others, then Republicans have no defense against tax hikes on anyone and everyone who earns more than anyone else.

If Republicans fall into the Left's trap, the long-term consequences will be devastating for the GOP (and the country), because they will have disarmed themselves morally. It will be a huge consolidation of the Left's ideological position; that of "fundamentally transforming America" into a collectivist hellhole.

If the Republicans are ever to have a chance to defeat the Democrats on the tax front, they will have to take a moral stand against discriminatory taxation against productiveness. The Republicans must capture the moral high ground by strenuously making the case that Obama's targeting of the "top 2%" is really an attack on all productive people with incomes above bare poverty levels.

As of this writing, the signs are not good. Republican opposition is weakening in the face of Obama's moral resoluteness, with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner saying Obama "is 'absolutely' ready to go over the [fiscal] cliff" unless tax rates rise for the wealthiest 2%. Meanwhile, the GOP is losing the public fight, because they have painted themselves into a champion-of-the-rich corner. What else would one expect, when the only argument they offer in defense of their position is to lamely claim that hiking taxes on the rich is bad for the economy, as against the Left's claim that it is moral to do so?

The Coming GOP Restructuring: Toward Liberty or Religious Authoritarianism?

In August, Albert R. Hunt raised the specter of a radical restructuring of the Republican Party, noting that Romney May Signal the End of Establishment Republicans' Rule.

At that point in the presidential campaign, the Romney team appeared to be headed for defeat. Unsurprisingly, that has now become a reality. Hunt wrote:

The grass-roots, ideologically driven base typified by the Tea Party movement ... is maturing into full control.

The establishment Republicans generally hold more moderate views, some having grown up in the party, others coming from business, and with a general appreciation of an “activist, limited government.”

Movement conservatives are motivated by ideology, sometimes small-government economics, other times the religious social agenda. They range from Paul Ryan, the small-government, economic policy-savvy vice-presidential candidate, to Todd Akin, the Missouri Senate contender who last week suggested that it is rare for women to become pregnant as a result of rape, saying “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

From Washington to the state capitals to the local level, the movement conservatives are in the ascendancy. For years, the Republican base was divided; it’s now dominated by the movement types.

From the end of the Reagan Administration through the second Bush Administration, Hunt notes, the GOP was dominated by liberal or "moderate" ("Establishment") Republicans. But the Establishment Republicans' reign culminated in the surging statism of the last 12 years, and the loss of an election that should have brought them a sweeping victory. Clearly, if the Republican Party is to become relevant, it needs to radically restructure.

But the movement conservatives and the Tea Party movement are afflicted by their own great divide--between (a general appreciation of) economic liberty and social authoritarianism. Free market capitalism simply cannot coexist with the Religious Right, or religion generally. On the dark side are the likes of Akin and Richard Mourdock and their cruel comments on rape. On the bright side are the likes of Margaret Hoover, who has called on the Republican Party to repudiate the anti-abortion, anti-immigration, anti-same-sex marriage Religious Right and social conservative elements of its agenda and unite the party platform under the principle of "American Individualism."  (See my Objective Standard review of her book of that title.)

To become relevant, the New Republican Party will have to choose one direction or the other. To learn how to help push the GOP in the right direction--the direction of individualism and individual rights--I urge you to read Free Market Revolution: How Ayn Rand's Ideas can End Big Government.


Related Reading:

My Challenge to the GOP; a Philosophical Contract with America

Understanding Obama: It's Not the Economy, Stupid!

Will the 58% Save America?

Politics 2012: Can "American Individualism" Save the GOP--and America?

Election 2010: Is it 1966, or a Real Turning of the Statist Tide?

Ayn Rand Foresaw Conservatism's Second Obituary

Were the Job Numbers Fudged?

New York Post reporter John Crudelle strongly implies that they were--in Barack Obama's favor.

In today's (Election Day's) column, The curious case of the lucky jobs numbers, Crudelle writes:

I’ll leave the conspiracy theories to Jack Welch, former head of General Electric, who thinks the labor numbers are being rigged. I will just present the facts.

Let me start with last Friday’s numbers — the crucial employment roundup for October and the last major economic figure due before today’s vote.

Labor announced that 171,000 new jobs were created in October, a figure that was better than the “experts” expected and good enough for the president to tout in his last campaign stops.

But if you looked closely enough — and knew what you were looking at — you’d see a problem with that 171,000 figure.

The better-than-expected growth was mostly caused by a dramatic change in the seasonal adjustments used on the numbers. Without that change, growth in October would have only been around 100,000.

And that’s a figure the president would not have been bragging about.

Labor swore to me that nobody could have tinkered with the seasonal adjustments.

The second instance of good luck on jobs came in the September employment figures, which were released Oct. 5.

As I mentioned back then, the unemployment rate fell an astounding 0.3 percentage points to 7.8 percent largely because of an inexplicable jump in the number of young people who allegedly got jobs.

When the Census Bureau conducted that September survey for Labor, it discovered that 368,000 people between the ages of 20 and 24 had suddenly found work that month. Labor boxed a footnote in its report about the unusual occurrence but couldn't — or didn't — explain it.

The third instance was noticed by — I think — Reuters. In the week of Oct. 6, the initial claims for unemployment insurance (which is watched closely by the financial markets) suddenly dropped by 10 percent.

If you took the figure seriously, it looked like a sudden, last-minute improvement in the job market that would certainly help Obama. But then word started filtering out that the improvement was the result of one unnamed state that didn't file its weekly paperwork on time.

California — a state that supports the president wholeheartedly — was rumored to be the lax filer. So I’m wondering: Does someone in DC deserve a kick in the teeth?

I would say, yes--President Barack Obama (metaphorically speaking, of course), though not because of the fudging of the jobs numbers.

Crudelle says he voted for Obama in 2008, but is voting for Romney today because he has promised to get rid of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, whose inflationary, 0% interest rate monetary policies have, as Crudelle puts it, redistributed wealth "in a direction even Obama wouldn't approve — from the poor and middle class to the rich."

That's another good reason to vote for Mitt Romney.

Obama Confirms: The Left Can't Live With Ayn Rand

As a presidential candidate in 2008, Barack Obama made derogatory references to "the virtue of selfishness." In response, I wrote:

"Leaving aside the distortions (equating selfishness with irresponsibility), the inversions (equating charity with his taking of other peoples’ tax money to “help” the middle class, while deriding as “selfish” the victims’ resistence), and the intellectual package-dealing (selfishness as an unqualified evil, regardless of the method one employs in achieving one’s “selfish” goals), there is something significant in this new line of attack. The Obama machine must have come to the realization that new forces hostile to his agenda are gathering in the culture. "Make no mistake, Barack Obama…a deeply philosophical thinker…was referring to Ayn Rand’s book, The Virtue of Selfishness, in which she lays out in non-fiction form the essence of the ethical system dramatized in her classic novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. These are not isolated comments, or coincidences. They come directly on the heals of the Left’s anti-Objectivist barrage triggered by the Greenspan testimony. As I previously argued, at least some on the Left understand the basic conflict."

Today, there is little doubt that Ayn Rand has become a significant element of the cultural/political debate. In a Rolling Stone presidential interview, the President of the United States was asked "Have you ever read Ayn Rand?" True to form, Obama's petulant answer pointedly misrepresents Rand's ideas, starting with the common talking point that her books are appealing only to "misunderstood" teenagers, who soon outgrow her ideas as they "get older." 

Ari Armstrong demolishes Obama's straw man, and sets the record straight on Rand's ideas, and Craig Biddle followed up by explaining why adults--especially Barack Obama--desperately need Rand's objective, reality-oriented philosophy.

Yes, the Left definitely knows who must be defeated if their welfare state cancer is to be saved from a cure.

As Armstrong concludes:

   Why, if Obama has read Rand, does he refuse to acknowledge her actual views? The clear answer is that Obama sees in Rand a threat to his collectivist vision.   Thankfully, although Rand is not around to defend herself from Obama’s smears, her works beckon any honest reader to learn what it means to live a life devoted to the rational pursuit of one’s values and respect for individual rights.

And Biddle calls us to action:

Help spread Ayn Rand’s principled perspective. The left can’t live with it, and we can’t thrive without it.

Related Reading:

Obama's Pre-Emptive Strike
Ayn Rand: Tea Party Voice of the Founding Fathers

For President; Not Barack Obama

Unlike four years ago, when I abstained from voting for president due to Obama's overt collectivism and McCain's equally collectivist nationalism and disdain for free speech, this time I will be casting a presidential vote--for Mitt Romney. Politically, the best I can say about Romney is that he's not Obama. But at least he has some respect for business and, more importantly, the dignity of the individual.

Not so Obama.

Obama appeals to the very worst in people; to envy, greed (a sense of entitlement), resentment, fear of self-responsibility, bigotry (against success), outright hatred of the good for being the good, dependence, suspicion of others. His political agenda reflects overt collectivism, egalitarianism, and state supremacy. His unabashed faith in the state as the source of economic well-being leads straight to a hybrid socialist/fascist system and consequent widening impoverishment. His foreign policy fosters a growing imperialist Islamist threat.

All of these negatives have been around in varying degrees for decades, acting to slowly rot out America's culture of individualism and capitalism. But Obama represents the most overt manifestation of those cultural trends ever. He is the logical consequence of the "progressive" philosophical assault on Americanism. It is a sad commentary that we have reached a stage where a president believes he can succeed by openly appealing to those corrosive character traits--and garner enough popular support to keep an election that should be a slam-dunk for any Republican close.

But that's where we are. This election will not reverse the century-long tide toward a socialist America. If Romney wins, he may stem the tide temperarily, giving us a breather which we can use to continue our work of moving the culture away from altruism and toward egoism, the fundamental moral victory that must precede any hope of changing the political course we are on.

If Obama wins, the trend continues more forcefully than before. He knows that--with only eight years to accomplish his goal of fundamentally transforming America, half of which has (productively, from his perspective) past--he must cram as much additional "transformation" into his second term as he can.

That's why Obama must be defeated--to buy time. There are risks, however. Just as the 2008 financial collapse has been blamed on the statist Bush's alleged "free market" policies--tarnishing the reputation of a capitalism that doesn't exist in America--so a second collapse under a Romney administration wrought by Obama's policies will be blamed on some alleged Romney "free market" policies, compounding the damage.

But that's a risk worth taking. Few people today even know what capitalism is or how it actually works, so our educational work is already cut out for us.

Romney for president.

Racism or Political Statement

Is this poster depicting President Obama as an African witch doctor racist or a political protest? The NJ Star-Ledger and many others think it is racist.

However, if you look closely, the message can be taken in a way that has nothing to do with race. I left the following comments:

zemack

If Hillary Clinton was president, and her face was on Skuby’s display with the caption "HillaryCare”—or if, 45 years ago, we saw Lyndon Johnson's face in a storefront with the caption "Medicare”—would either have been deemed racist?

I read the Spring Lake display not as racist, but as a rather effective political statement against collectivized, state-run medicine. Notice the hammer-and-sickle, the symbol of the white-run Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, in place of the "C". Collectivism is the neo-tribal doctrine that holds that the individual's only moral purpose is sacrifice and service to "society," as represented by the state, and that the state can therefor override any individual's rights to liberty and property for what it deems to be the "public" or "common good." Collectivism is the doctrine that gives rise to all forms of neo-tribalism, including communism, Nazism, fascism, welfare statism, and all manifestations of socialized medicine. Collectivism knows no racial boundaries, and the tribal witch doctor is an appropriate symbol for anyone who would place control of everyone's healthcare in the hands of a central planner.

Disagree or not, calling Bill Skuby a racist is an unjust smear. If Skuby got anything wrong, it is that he underestimated the extent to which his American-as-apple-pie protest sign would be misunderstood or misrepresented.

One correspondent disagreed that ObamaCare represents central planning.  amazed@humanity wrote:

BUT your central planner statement is incorrect in having national healthcare because we all will have the ability to make decisions on whether to have insurance or not(and a fool if choosing not to protect yourself and loved ones) and what kind of insurance you will have provided towards you.

It's true that America's hybrid public-private healthcare system is not central planning in the Soviet, communist sense of state ownership of the means of healthcare production and deliverance. But central planning comes in many guises, including the fascist variety. Government spending through programs like Medicare and Medicaid already accounts for half of healthcare spending in the US, and that very fact puts government bureaucrats in the position, through the power of the purse, to dictate medical deliverance.

ObamaCare greatly expands the governments already large regulatory control over private insurance companies, effectively making insurers proxies for those same bureaucratic dictates. While rationing (central planning) will not be as overt as in the Soviet model, it will still be there via the government's financial and regulatory efforts to control the accelerating price spiral caused by the decades-long accumulated government interventions. National healthcare gives broad powers to the government, and those powers won't remain dormant. The government is already flexing its central planning muscle: Look no further than the birth control mandate. Those exercise of those powers will be relentlessly expanded. National healthcare in any guise is central planning, regardless of how many "choices" it allows individuals to make. Freedom to choose only among government approved choices is not freedom. It is central planning. That is a fact.

End, Don't Reduce, Federal Student Higher Education Funding

As the editors of the NJ Star-Ledger note in Best Student Loan Debt Policies Reduce Hurdles, neither presidential candidate suggests eliminating government involvement in higher education funding. But the legitimacy of government financing of higher education is just what we should be debating.

I left the following comments:

The capacity for evasion in apparently infinite for many. We're still struggling to recover from the government-created easy-money-and-credit housing bubble meltdown, and here we have statists dogmatically defending this latest easy-money-and-credit bubble.

Government subsidization of higher education has had predictable results--exploding college costs; the creation of a fraudulent college-or-bust mentality that leaves intelligent, motivated non-college grads unfairly out in the cold; a mountain of college debt disconnected from appropriate marketable skills; a huge diversion of capital resources from profitable private investment to useless public "investments in the country's future"; and so on.

The so-called student loan crisis is a direct result of government subsidization of higher education in the form of grants, tax advantages, and loan guarantees--the predictable consequences of which decades of economic theory and practice foretold. And as usual, this subsidy program is rooted in immoral and improper government actions. The government has no right to forcibly seize private earnings and wealth to fund anyone's college education. It is legalized theft, and nothing more. Education loans are properly a voluntary contractual matter between private individuals and private lenders. Government has no valid role other than enforcing contracts and prosecuting fraud.

Government subsidization of college education is immoral and impractical. It must be ended across the board.

"Government Help" Leads to Totalitarian Socialism

A recent NJ Star-Ledger letter-to-the-editor pointed out that we all depend on government for one service or another. It was in response to Mitt Romney's comments about the 47% of voters that he said have an entitlement mentality because they depend on government for their needs. His letter is titled, Mitt Romney, we all get government help.

I left the following comments:

That "government help" is no such thing. 

The highway system was funded by private money seized by force from private individuals who earned it, and paid out to other productive private individuals to build it.  

The same holds true for schools, basic research, the space program, Pell grants, guaranteed student and small business loans, old-age retirement and healthcare funding (Social Security, Medicare), charity (Medicaid), and a myriad of other government spending programs. These functions are all funded by private individuals, and properly should never have been co-opted by government force.

The government's only role in any of this is as a political money laundering operation, with politicians taking unearned credit for them. It's all based on theft. Such is the nature of that so-called "government help."

The exception is veterans benefits. Maintaining a military is a proper function of government, which is to protect its citizens' individual rights. The military protects us from foreign enemies. Those who serve in the military rightfully deserve compensation. Veterans medical care, the GI Bill, and the like are a form of payment for services rendered and therefor legitimate. The same holds true for domestic police forces.

As to: "Every time you spend your Social Security check, federal pension or military or federal employee paycheck, you contribute to the growth of American business and industry."

This is Keynesian nonsense, and demonstrably false. We "contribute to the growth of American business and industry" only when we earn the money through productive work. As any honorable person knows, you can't spend what hasn't been earned. You can't consume before you have produced. Try eating a loaf of bread today, that you don't bake until tomorrow. Those government checks are money previously earned.

Yes, we all depend on government to protect out rights, lives and property. Any other kind of dependence is immoral and illegitimate.

It is critically important to understand the difference between the proper and improper functions of government. If we don't, then there is no area of human activity that the government can be stopped from co-opting, eventually leaving all of us dependent on "government help" for every aspect of our lives. That is, we will slide into a totalitarian socialist state devoid of freedom and prosperity.

Romney's Edge; Some Genuine Respect for Business and the Individual

As expected, in the first debate Mitt Romney demonstrated that there is fundamentally little difference between himself and Obama.

Clearly, Romney's biggest Achilles Heal is healthcare. As Obama hammered home, ObamaCare is modeled after RomneyCare in Massachusetts. Romney simply had no way to wiggle around the issue, and his promise to repeal and replace ObamaCare had no credibility. The one highlight was his sharp focus on the (IPAB) board that has the power to dictate healthcare decisions of doctors and patients. But given his strong statist inclinations toward healthcare, it's hard to imagine anything he would put in its place that would not ultimately lead to some form of rationing.

On education, Romney endorsed a large federal role for education. His idea to have government grade the schools so parents could tell the good ones from the bad smacks of central planning.

Romney enthusiastically endorsed government regulation of business, with only the tepid "I can do it better and more efficiently" establishment Republican/conservative line. He lost the chance to place the blame for the Great Recession squarely where the mountain of facts tell us it belongs--on government regulation and interference into the markets (although he correctly attacked our "too-big-to-fail" bank policies). Obama was thus able to perpetuate the lie that lack of regulation and tax cuts caused the whole debacle, giving credence to his call for ever-more regulation.

On taxes and spending, Romney made pretty clear he wouldn't raise taxes. But I think he squandered a chance to use the tax issue to put force a bold tax reform plan like a flat tax, and he took pains to avoid any real commitment to reducing taxes in any meaningful way. On spending, his assertion that we could grow our way out of the deficits is unconvincing to say the least, considering the size, scope, and runaway nature of government entitlement programs. He simply does not have the heart to say what needs to be done with spending.

On Lehrer's question about the proper role of government, Romney fell flat, saying his interpretation of the "pursuit of happiness" principle is an endorsement of welfare statism. Not surprisingly, Romney believes that the welfare state is compatible with freedom: "But we also believe in maintaining for individuals the right to pursue their dreams and not to have the government substitute itself for the rights of free individuals." The contradiction is obvious. 

On the positive side, he convincingly demonstrated his commitment to maintaining  a strong military. Romney was better on energy. While giving the obligatory nod to "alternative energy," he went to bat for fossil fuels, especially the Obama-battered coal industry and the Keystone pipeline. I liked that he called the President on the surge in domestic natural gas and oil production--which Obama took credit for--by noting that the surge was in spite of, not because of, Obama's policies. I also like his introduction of the term "trickle-down government," a nice retort to Obama's insulting smear of free markets as "top down" or "trickle down" economics.

Policy specifics aside, though, the big message that came across in this debate is that Romney clearly has some genuine respect for business and the individual--a respect that may help pull him in the right direction on policy. Despite insultingly phony lip-service to free enterprise and freedom, Obama clearly has nothing but contempt for the individual's liberty and dignity, as epitomized in his frequent references to freer healthcare markets as "being at the mercy of private insurance companies." Disappointingly, Romney failed to capitalize on this Democrat talking point. He should have hit that one out of the ballpark. While he did note that, in the private market, you are free to switch insurers any time you're not satisfied with the one you have, he failed to hammer home that being at the mercy of government is the real threat to the individual.

Still, for liberty lovers, Romney showed that he is the clear choice in this election. Though there is little hope of a Romney presidency reversing the long-term statist trend, and despite the ever-present danger that any economic calamity that may happen under his watch will be another excuse to blame "free market policies," the need for a respite from Obama's policies takes priority. The dangers inherent in electing a statist republican is outweighed by the danger posed by a second Obama Administration.

The Evil Genius of the Welfare State

At least for now, the Romney campaign appears to be sinking. While it's impossible to prove, I feel very strongly that the turning point was Romney's 47% statement, and the fallout from that continues. The NJ Star-Ledger's October 1st editorial is entitled What Moochers? Government Programs Help Nearly All Americans. Here are some excerpts:

Nearly all Americans have received a direct form of government benefits at some point in their lives, according to a national survey by Cornell University — whether rich or poor, Democrat or Republican.

After pointing out the Romneys' legal exploitation of some tax write-off, the editors say:

   As many as 96 percent of Americans have relied on the federal government to assist them, it found, and most of the remaining 4 percent are simply too young to be eligible for these policies.
   We’re not talking about government spending that benefits everyone, such as national defense or the interstate highway system. This only includes direct benefits, everything from Social Security or unemployment insurance to home mortgage-interest deductions — which are just as much government help as food stamps, home heating aid or college grants.

The editors conclude, "So when Romney wrote off 47 percent of the country, he got his numbers wrong. And he overlooked one pretty jazzy, Olympic-quality dressage horse, too," this last referring to the aforementioned tax write-off.

I left the following comments:

First, let's get past this editorial's dishonest obfuscatory terminology. Those government "benefits" or "help" or "assistance"--whatever you want to call it--are no such thing. All of these programs are based on brute force, politely disguised as "legislation" or the "democratic process." They are funded by money taken by force of taxation from private citizens who earned it, and paid out in one form or another to other citizens. The government's role in this process is that of nothing more than a money laundering operation--an operation so huge that it makes the biggest organized crime syndicates look like mere pickpocket rings.

Romney's idiotic (and untrue) 47% statement aside, the fact remains that there are those who receive more from the government money launderers than they pay in taxes. And there are many suckers who pay more in taxes than they "get back" in government checks. That nearly every American will receive some form of government handout only disguises the fact that the welfare state is a huge immoral transfer of wealth from those who earned it to those who didn't.

But then, that's the evil genius of welfare statism: Piece by legislative piece, like termites eating away at a structure, the statists have managed to trap everyone into a position that makes it nearly impossible for anyone to avoid that government check. Then, use that trap to discredit any opposition to welfare statism. But the editors clever attempt to exploit the trap for political purposes only serves to highlight our corrupt tax code and the extent to which the welfare state has intruded on our lives, and the desperate need to begin phasing out both. 

Is it hypocritical to collect on a program whose "benefit" promises were paid for with your own tax money? "Yes" is the answer implied in this editorial. A resounding no is the correct, and moral, answer. I addressed this issue in a previous post on Social Security. The arguments extend to virtually all government programs.

Related Reading:

The Social Security Injustice

Social Security and the "Hypocrisy" Charge

For Obama Opponents, Not Much to Hope For in Tonight's Debate

My hope meter jumped a couple of notches when Romney picked Paul Ryan as his running mate. Then came his fold on ObamaCare and his 47% comment. This is the tip of the iceberg. As columnist Paul Mulshine points out:

   I can’t see a dime’s worth of difference between these two. Romney somehow convinced Republicans that he represents a real change from Obama. But back when he ran Massachusetts, Romney’s policies were virtually identical to Obama’s on just about every issue of importance, from health care reform to the cap-and-trade approach to reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
   Look no farther for the reason he’s behind in the polls. There’s an old saying to the effect that the best lie detector is a television camera. And every time Romney gets up in front of one, it is obvious to anyone paying attention that virtually everything he says is a refutation of something he said in the not-too-distant past.  Obama doesn't have that problem. When he endorses all those liberal positions that Romney used to support, he’s telling the truth. He really believes this stuff.

I basically agree with Mulshine here, although I'm not sure how many Republicans Romney actually convinced "he represents a real change from Obama"--i.e., is a proponent of individualism and free markets. It was obvious to me he never was. But that's me, and I'm not a Republican.

The problem is not bad ideology. It is much worse than that. As Mulshine observes, "Romney...has no deeply held beliefs." Romney's inept campaign is the consequence, and it is hard to see how Romney can do much to tip the scales in his favor in these debates. Despite some of his shallow rhetoric, he is basically Obama Lite, just like W. Bush. Why elect another Obama Lite, when you can have the real thing?

As Mulshine notes, quoting George F. Will, "If the Republican Party cannot win in this environment, it has to get out of politics and find another business." Or, I would suggest, radically restructure its message.

As for my wife and I, we won't be watching tonight's debate. We'll tape it, in case we care to watch it later. Tonight, we'll be focused on something more substantive. We'll be watching the New York Yankees attempt to clinch the American League East crown.

GO YANKEES!!

Related Reading:

Romney vs. Romney on Coercive wealth Redistribution

Is Romney Really on the Political Right?

Romney Addresses Entitlement Mentality, Misses Fundamental by Ari Armstrong

Why the GOP Must Stand Firm on "Tax Cuts for the Rich"

There is much more at stake in the coming political battle over extending the Bush tax cuts than a mere few percentage points of someone's tax bracket. The Left knows that whatever additional revenues flow to the government from a raise in the top tax bracket from 35% to the pre-Bush 39.6% level will be minuscule compared to the deficit. They don't care, because they're looking to fry a much bigger fish.

To understand what is at stake, we must look at the numbers. The Democrats' assault on "the rich" has taken the form of singling out the "top 1%." That is their symbol and rallying cry.

Remember that the percentage of something is relative to the hard numbers. In relation to any fixed number, the total quantity always equals 100%. If you have 100 marbles of varying sizes in a jar, the total equals 100%. If you take the largest one and shave it down so it is no longer the largest, you still have 100%; except that now the next largest one, which then becomes the largest, is not quite as large as the previous largest marble. You now have a smaller "top 1%." Continue with this process, and eventually all of the marbles are cut down to the size of the smallest--i.e., no more top, middle, or bottom 1%.

The same is true with regard to taxpayers in an industrial economy.

If every dollar of the "rich" that falls into the category of the highest 1% of income were redistributed away, reducing the taxpayers "take-home" pay below that magic threshold--effectively discouraging anyone from earning money above a certain level--the total number of taxpayers will still equal 100%. But now the next highest level of income--what was the previous 99th percentile--becomes the new “top 1%.” If their "surplus" wealth is confiscated, then the next level of income becomes the “top 1%,” and so on.

But the Left doesn't want to take it all, just a "fair share," you say? Think again. There was a time when the highest rate in America was 91%. Then came the Kennedy/Reagan tax cuts, which brought the top rate down to 28%. The rates have bounced around since then, settling at the current top rate of 35%. But make no mistake, the Left has been itching to reverse the Kennedy/Reagan tax regime, and their 1% strategy is their means. If the premise that the top 1% should be singled out for special, higher taxation is accepted, the Left will always have someone to go after. Just as the process by which we reached today's massive welfare state was a long-term, incremental process, so it will be with regard to the tax issue. As long as there is any income “disparity” whatsoever, there will be a “top 1%” to exploit--and it will be.

The logical endgame of Obama’s anti-1% crusade is a society of universal economic, rather than legal, equality; that is to say, of universal poverty--a jar full of small marbles. Then, a new top 1% will have arisen; a top 1% comprised of rulers over a command economy. This is why the Left is so feverish about the relatively inconsequential 4.6% rise in the top rate that excluding "the rich" from extension of the Bush tax cuts would engender. The Left's “top 1%" strategy fits neatly into its collectivist worldview. It is an egalitarian assault on virtually any productive person with an income above bare poverty levels. Obama’s vision is not new. It has a name. It is nothing less than a “soft” brand of Marxian communism.

How, then, will the Republicans respond? There is only one way to stop this game: Attack the principle behind it--which, really, goes to the heart of the fundamental battle between individualism and collectivism. If the Republicans cave in on taxing the rich, they will have handed the Left a "gift that will keep on giving." Once the principle that the highest earners can be singled out for discriminatory taxation, what's to stop the Left from going back to the 1% well time and time again?

There are many policy areas in which the GOP can and must halt its retreat, and draw a firm philosophical "line in the sand." It must use this battle to take a firm stand for real tax fairness--extend the tax cuts for everyone, or no one, the polls be damned. The long-term philosophical stakes are high in the coming tax battle. That is a good place to draw that line.

Related Reading:

My Challenge to the GOP: a Philosophical Contract With America

In the Spirit of Compromise, How About a Flat Tax?

Global Wealth "Redistribution" for Global Poverty: The Egalitarian Ideal, by Ari Armstrong

Mitt Romney: Obama Lite

My latest post at The Objective Standard blog is up. If you want a good hint at why the Romney Republicans have been so ineffectual against the Democrats, and why an election that should be an uphill climb for Obama has him appearing to be the likely winner, read Romney vs. Romney on Coercive Wealth Redistribution.

On America's "Social Contract," the Source of Individual Character, and Romney's 47%

The flap over Mitt Romney's 47% comments continued, with the NJ Star-Ledger editorial board declaring that, because of that comment, Romney "can't be trusted with the presidency." They offered several choice opportunities for rebuttal activism. Here are a few excerpts, and my comments:

S-L--

The next president, whoever it is, will have to strike a tough balance. He will have to be both hard-nosed and compassionate. He will have to impose painful spending cuts, while protecting the social contract that promises a decent life for those who play by the rules.

Me:

There is not and never has been any socialist "social contract" in America. This is a devious myth dreamed up by the Left to empower government. America promises the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness and well-being, and the individual liberty to act to achieve it by productive labor and voluntary free trade with others. There is and never were any "promises of a decent life" of material benefits provided by others, only of a life free from human predators out to take what property you have earned. There was never any guarantee of an equal starting point in life, where everyone is "born on third base," or even the same base. Equal opportunity, in America's ideals, is a political, not an economic, term. It means equal legal protection of everyone's rights to live and to set and pursue his own goals.

S-L:

   “I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives,” [Romney] said.   That is the view of a man who has spent too much time cloistered among like-minded conservatives, believing in a myth they have spun about the winners and losers of this country. In this view, the rich are the virtuous job creators whose success is an outgrowth of their superior character. It is galling to hear this from a guy who was born on third base...

This reference to character could be a back-door slap at Ayn Rand. If it is, it's a misrepresentation. In any event, here is my response:

I don't know of anyone who ever said that "the rich are the virtuous job creators whose success is an outgrowth of their superior character." Superior ability and judgement? Yes, and it's true that most people who grow rich in this country create plenty of jobs along the way. But character is not measured by how much money a person makes, and I never heard of anyone who ever made that claim. It is not the amount of money that indicates superior character, but that a person makes the money he lives on. A person of virtuous character understands that he must take responsibility for himself, live by his own judgement, and understands that his own need in not a moral claim on the lives and earnings of others. The independent self-supporting man of moderate means and the man who earns a fortune are moral blood-brothers. Those who expect and demand handouts from others are moral inferiors.

S-L:

Romney misses a lot. He needs to get out more often and see that millions of Americans who receive food stamps, or college scholarships, or free health care are taking responsibility for their lives. Almost all of those getting this kind of help are either working, studying or retired. The problem is not that they lack virtue. They just don’t have much money.

There's some truth to this, even though there are a lot more parasites out there than the editors acknowledge. As Ari Armstrong notes over at The Objective Standard, "Romney is wrong in assuming that, just because someone takes government handouts, that person necessarily shares the entitlement mentality or advocates forced wealth transfers. For many Americans living under today’s rights-violating government, it is practically impossible not to receive some sort of government handout."

I left these comments:

Romney is wrong about the 47%. Many do not have an entitlement mentality. And many in the other 53% do. That's why corporate welfare exists, like the GM bailout and NJ's solar subsidy scam. The problem is that the welfare state turns honorable people into "takers." I collect Social Security "benefits," which will never match the value of what was taken from me in taxes over my 45 year working career. I'll soon be forced onto Medicare. But both programs are funded by younger workers, not the recipient's accumulated lifetime "contributions," which were funneled into some else's pockets. The best gift any senior can bestow on his grandchildren is to fight for the phaseout of both programs.

The whole welfare state is corrupt, as is any human endeavor that begins with theft. It is not the goals of these programs, but the means, that is evil. SS, Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, Pell grants--the whole un-American mish-mash--should be phased out and abolished. They violate the real American social contract--that each person owns his life, has the right to live and act upon his own judgement, keep the rewards of his own work--and that we respect each other's rights to do that. This is the very practical ideal that drew tens of millions of poor immigrants to these shores in the first 150 years after Independence, and that built this country.

I acknowledge that I am voting for Romney, because he is not Obama. But I am under no illusions. Don't expect this Republican ticket to muster the moral courage to take such an uncompromising stand against collectivism. They are watered-down welfare statists. I don't know why the editors are so worked up. Whoever wins, the welfare state can't lose in this election.